[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§ 21. Substitute Amendment; Amendment in nature of Substitute; Amendment to Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8334-8374]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 21. Substitute Amendment; Amendment in Nature of Substitute; 
    Amendment to Amendment

    An amendment offered to an amendment must be germane to that 
amendment.(20) Accordingly, where an amendment is offered to 
one part of a bill, a substitute amendment which relates to a different 
part of the bill is not germane to the original 
amendment.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 33.5, 33.6, 36.3, infra.
21. See the ruling of Chairman George A. Dondero (Mich.) at 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 7768, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1948. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6396 (Committee on the Judiciary), 
        relating to admission into the United States of certain 
        displaced persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A substitute must be germane to the amendment for which offered and 
must relate to the same portion of the bill being amended by the 
amendment.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the proceedings of Oct. 8, 1975, relating to H.J. Res. 683, a 
        bill to implement the United States proposal for an early-
        warning system in the Sinai, discussed in Sec. 3.47, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perfecting amendments to amendments in the nature of a substitute 
or to substitute amendments need to be germane to the inserted language 
contained in said substitutes, it being irrelevant whether or not the 
perfecting amendment might be germane to the underlying (perhaps 
broader) bill which said substitute seeks to strike out and replace. 
The language of the underlying bill proposed to be stricken is not 
taken into consideration when determining the germaneness of a second 
degree amendment to a substitute proposing to insert other language. It 
is only the pending text under immediate consideration against which 
the germaneness of proposed amendments thereto is judged. This test of 
germaneness is consistent with Rule XIX governing the permissible 
degree of amendments in the House (see Ch. 27, Amendments, supra). At 
this stage the House has not finally adopted any version of a

[[Page 8335]]

House-passed bill and is free to reject the pending amendment(s) and 
proceed to other differently drafted amendments which may present 
another test of germaneness to the bill as a whole.
    Of course, an amendment in the nature of a substitute is normally 
an amendment in the first degree for an entire bill and its germaneness 
is measured by its relationship to the underlying bill, whereas a 
substitute amendment is an alternative for a first degree amendment 
already pending.

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

Substitute Must Be Germane to Amendment for Which Offered

Sec. 21.1 The test of the germaneness of a substitute amendment is its 
    relationship to the amendment for which offered and not its 
    relationship to the pending bill; thus, for an amendment 
    establishing a termination date for the Federal Energy 
    Administration, a substitute not dealing with the date of 
    termination but providing instead a reorganization plan for that 
    agency was ruled out as not germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(2) during consideration of a bill 
(3) extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, an 
amendment was offered which sought to change a provision of the bill 
relating to the date of termination of the Federal Energy 
Administration. A substitute for that amendment was then offered. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051, 16055, 16056, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. H.R. 12169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: Page 10, line 4, strike 
        out ``September 30, 1979'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``December 31, 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Fithian). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: On page 
        10, after line 4, add the following:
            ``Sec. 3. Section 28 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by inserting the following, in lieu 
        thereof,
            `` `Notwithstanding section 527 of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act, upon termination of this Act, as provided for 
        in Section 30 of this Act, all functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration shall be transferred to existing departments, 
        agencies or

[[Page 8336]]

        offices of the Federal Government, or their successors. The 
        President, through the Director of the Office of Management and 
        Budget, shall file, 12 months before the termination of this 
        Act, a plan and program with the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives and the President of the Senate, to provide for 
        the orderly transfer of the functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration to such departments, agencies or offices. Within 
        90 days after the submission of this plan and program, either 
        House of Congress may pass a resolution disapproving such plan 
        and program.' ''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts. The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the existence of the FEA as an 
    agency and sets a date for the expiration thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals 
    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to 
    deal with the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: . . . This amendment simply deals 
    with the termination of the FEA after 15 months. The only 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that it does indicate that the 
    President should through OMB present to the Congress a plan. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) goes solely to the question of the date of termination of 
    the FEA. The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, now before the Committee, goes beyond that issue to 
    the question of reorganization of that agency. Therefore, it is not 
    germane as a substitute. The point of order would have to be 
    sustained; but the gentle

[[Page 8337]]

    man's amendment might be in order following the Fithian amendment 
    as a separate amendment to the Committee proposal.

Sec. 21.2 A substitute amendment must be germane to the amendment for 
    which offered, it not being sufficient that it relates to a 
    different portion of the bill being amended; thus, to an amendment 
    to add a word to a section of a bill (with the effect of 
    prohibiting indirect as well as direct aid to certain countries), a 
    substitute to add another word in a different portion of the 
    section (with the effect of adding another country to which direct 
    aid was prohibited) was held not germane.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriations for 
fiscal 1978 (5) in the Committee of the Whole on June 22, 
1977,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 7797.
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 20235, 20236, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
        to finance directly any assistance to Uganda, Cambodia, Laos, 
        or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 11, line 
        17, after the word ``directly'' add ``or indirectly''.

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 11, line 18, 
        strike out ``or'' and add after ``Vietnam'' ``or Cuba''. . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that under the rules of germaneness this amendment is out of order 
    inasmuch as it relates to the bill but not to the amendment 
    pending. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this is not a proper 
    substitute because it goes to a different subject. The point of 
    order is, respectfully, sustained.

Sec. 21.3 The test of germaneness is the relationship between a 
    substitute and the amendment for which offered, and not between the 
    substitute and the original bill; accordingly, where an amendment 
    denied eligibility for certain higher education assistance benefits 
    to persons refusing

[[Page 8338]]

    to register for military service, a substitute denying benefits 
    under the same provisions of law except to persons refusing to 
    register for religious or moral reasons was held germane.

    On July 28, 1982,(8) during consideration of H.R. 6030 
(military procurement authorization for fiscal 1983), Chairman Les 
AuCoin, of Oregon, held that to a proposition denying benefits to 
recipients failing to meet a certain qualification, a substitute 
denying the same benefits to some recipients but excepting others was 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 128 Cong. Rec. 18355-58, 18361, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 26, after line 22, 
        add the following new section:

                 enforcement of military selective service act

            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) The Director of the Selective Service System shall 
        submit to the Secretary of Education, with respect to each 
        individual receiving, or applying for, any grant, assisted 
        loan, benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), or 
        participating in any program established, or assisted, under 
        such title, verification of whether such individual has 
        violated section 3 by not presenting and submitting to 
        registration pursuant to section 3. . . .
            ``(3) If the Secretary of Education preliminarily 
        determines that any individual described in paragraph (1) has 
        violated section 3, the Secretary of Education shall notify 
        such individual of the preliminary determination.
            ``(4) Any individual notified pursuant to paragraph (3) may 
        submit to the Secretary of Education within a period of time of 
        not less than 30 days after receiving such notification any 
        information with respect to the compliance or violation of 
        section 3 by such individual.
            ``(5) After the period of time specified in paragraph (4) 
        and taking into consideration any information submitted by the 
        individual, the Secretary of Educaton shall make a final 
        determination on whether each individual notified pursuant to 
        paragraph (3) has complied with or violated section 3.
            ``(6)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        individual finally determined by the Secretary of Education 
        pursuant to paragraph (5) to have violated section 3 is not 
        eligible for, and may not receive, any grant, assisted loan, 
        benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), and may not 
        participate in any program established, or assisted, under such 
        title. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon as a substitute for the 
        amendment

[[Page 8339]]

        offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill add the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work 
        assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), a person who is required under 
        section 3 to present himself for and submit to registration 
        under such section shall--
            ``(A) submit to the institution of higher education which 
        the person intends to attend, or is attending, proof that such 
        person has submitted to such registration;
            ``(B) complete and submit the necessary forms for such 
        registration at the time of filing application for such grant, 
        loan, or work assistance; or
            ``(C) submit a statement that such person refuses to submit 
        to such registration for religious or moral reasons.
            ``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the Director, 
        after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is 
        authorized to prescribe methods for providing to, and 
        collecting from, institutions of higher education the forms 
        necessary for registration under section 3, and for collecting 
        statements described in paragraph (1)(C) from such 
        institutions.''.
            (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section 
        shall apply to loans, grants, or work assistance under title IV 
        of the Higher Education Act for periods of instruction 
        beginning on or after July 1, 1983. . . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment which I offered and was printed in the Record 
    was a nongermane amendment which had points of order raised against 
    it.
        Subsequently, I appeared before the Rules Committee and asked 
    for those points of order to be waived, which they granted in the 
    rule.
        Now in the amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Simon) is offering, in section (c) he says to submit a statement 
    that such person refuses to submit to such registration for 
    religious and moral reasons. That is additional law which had 
    nothing to do with the amendment and the waiver of points of order 
    that were granted by the Rules Committee. I say that the 
    gentleman's amendment is out of order because of that. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is how 
    we can have something that is workable. My aim is the same as that 
    of the gentleman from New York, but I think the gentleman from New 
    York, with all due respect, has not dealt with this whole very 
    complex problem of student loans and grants.
        I think the amendment that I have is the only workable one. I 
    think it is totally within the province of the amendment that the 
    gentleman has.
        I think the substitute amendment that I have offered is in 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair finds that both the amendment and the substitute 
    amendment prescribe limitations on eligibility under title IV of 
    the Higher Education Act of 1965, both in similar ways.
        The question of the waiver granted to the Solomon amendment by 
    the rule is not relevant to the point of order since the test of 
    germaneness is whether the substitute amendment is ger

[[Page 8340]]

    mane to the amendment, not to the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is in order and 
    the gentleman is recognized.

Substitute Changing Different or Lesser Portion of Pending Section

Sec. 21.4 A substitute for a pending amendment may be offered to change 
    a different or lesser portion of the pending section if it relates 
    to the same subject matter as the amendment; thus, for a perfecting 
    amendment making several changes in a pending section, a substitute 
    adding language at the end of the section rather than striking and 
    inserting within the section was held in order since relating to 
    the same subject as the amendment.

    During consideration of the Foreign Aid Authorization for fiscal 
year 1979,(9) the Chair overruled a point of order against 
the amendment described above. The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole on Aug. 1, 1978,(10) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 12514.
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 23732, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: Page 18, immediately after 
        line 4, insert the following new subsection:
            (e) It is the sense of the Congress that further withdrawal 
        of ground forces of the United States from the Republic of 
        Korea may seriously risk upsetting the military balance in that 
        region and requires full advance consultation with the 
        Congress. Prior to any further withdrawal the President should 
        report to the Congress on the effect of any proposed withdrawal 
        plan on preserving deterrence in Korea; the reaction 
        anticipated from North Korea; a consideration of the effect of 
        the plan on increasing incentives for the Republic of Korea to 
        develop an independent nuclear deterrent . . . and the possible 
        implications of any proposed withdrawal on the Soviet-Chinese 
        military situation.

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the gentleman has not 
    bothered to look at my amendment. My amendment makes specific 
    changes in the text on section 19. I am not clear where the 
    gentleman's amendment would come in section 19. He cannot 
    substitute a straight wording, as I understand it, for something 
    that has a series of changes in 3 pages of a particular section.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, my amendment would come at the end 
    of section 19.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair might inform the 
    gentleman from New York

[[Page 8341]]

    that it is a proper substitute amendment. Both the proposed 
    amendment and the substitute are perfecting amendments to the 
    section and deal with the same subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Amendment--Substitute Perfecting Lesser Portion of Same Text

Sec. 21.5 For an amendment perfecting a bill, an amendment germane 
    thereto perfecting a lesser portion of the same text is in order as 
    a substitute; thus, for an amendment dealing with the role of an 
    agency in regulating commercial diving activities on the Outer 
    Continental Shelf by promulgation of interim and final standards, a 
    substitute relating only to the role of that agency in issuing 
    interim regulations was held in order as germane.

    On Feb. 1, 1978,(12) during consideration of the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act amendments (H.R. 1614), the Chair overruled 
a point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 1816-18, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 192, lines 15 and 16, 
        strike out ``, the Secretary of Labor,''.
            Page 193, line 10, strike out ``achievable'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``feasible''.
            Page 193, line 15, strike out ``(1)''.
            Page 193, strike out lines 16 through 22, and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``of this section, the Secretary of the Department 
        in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate 
        regulations or standards applying to diving activities in the 
        waters above the Outer Continental Shelf, and to other 
        unregulated hazardous working conditions for which he 
        determines such''.
            Page 194, strike out lines 3 through 10.
            Page 197, line -- , strike out ``Secretary of Labor'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Secretary of the Department in which 
        the Coast Guard is operating.''. . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Fish: On page 193, strike 
        lines 15 to 24 and on page 194 strike lines 1 to 3 and insert: 
        ``(c) Notwithstanding section 4(b)(1) of the Occupa-''.

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        I do so because I was not exactly sure which amendment the 
    gentleman was going to offer, and I still have not got it in front 
    of me, but if indeed his amendment strikes or is an amendment to a 
    provision which I strike, I do not think it is in order. . . .

[[Page 8342]]

        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Fish) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I just want a clarification here. If I 
    understand the gentleman here, the gentleman is striking out lines 
    15 through 24 on page 193 and lines 1 and 2 on page 194. . . .
        Well, now, Mr. Chairman, this language in my amendment calls 
    for some revision of that language, but does not strike out several 
    of the lines, the lines that are the subject of the gentleman's 
    offered substitute. I just was not aware that that would be in 
    order in the light of the part of my amendment that deals with 
    pages 193 and 194.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) 
    insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Fish: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would say that 
    the substitute strikes a portion of the language; that the 
    amendment of the gentleman clearly strikes a much larger area and, 
    accordingly, would be in order. . . .
        Mr. Fish: . . . Mr. Chairman, this has been characterized as a 
    substitute to my amendment. I understood if that be the case, it 
    would have to be substantially the same.

        I direct the Chairman's attention to the fact that my amendment 
    addresses itself to the lines on pages 192 and 193 in three places 
    and pages 194 and 197; so I do not see how the gentleman from New 
    York can be offering a substitute that is narrow in focus and 
    dealing with only one of the several issues that is covered by my 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Murphy) deals with a lesser portion of the bill that the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) desires to perfect, and as 
    conceded by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) in a more 
    restricted fashion. The Murphy substitute deals only with interim 
    regulations, while the Fish amendment deals with OSHA's role in 
    promulgating both interim and final regulations.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds the 
    substitute to be in order.

Perfecting Amendment to Section or Subsection--Motion To Strike Not 
    Proper Substitute

Sec. 21.6 For a perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one 
    activity from those covered by a provision of existing law, a 
    substitute striking out the entire subsection, thereby eliminating 
    the applicability of existing law to a number of activities, was 
    held more general in scope and not germane.

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(14) during consideration of H.R. 5540, 
the Defense Industrial Base Revital

[[Page 8343]]

ization Act, in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the 
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                   H.R. 5540

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

    When consideration of H.R. 5540 resumed on Sept. 23, 
1982,(16) an amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce F. Vento, of

[[Page 8344]]

Minnesota, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by the gentleman is 
    clearly not in order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, 
    section 2879, the precedents provide that ``to qualify as a 
    substitute an amendment must treat in the same manner the same 
    subject carried by the amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and 
    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section or paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . It does appear to me from what the 
    gentleman has said in support of his point of order that he is 
    claiming that my substitute would treat a different matter or in a 
    different manner the same matter as the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman.
        The language to which both amendments are directed is language 
    in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon Act to activities 
    under the bill in question. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking out the 
    installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there

[[Page 8345]]

    would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond the 
    present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).
        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

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

Sec. 21.7 For an amendment inserting an additional labor standard to 
    those contained in a section of a bill, a motion to strike out the 
    entire section was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment, and not germane in that it had the effect of 
    enlarging the scope of the perfecting amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14747 (amending the Sugar Act of 1948) 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1974,(17) it was 
demonstrated that a motion to strike out a section is not in order as a 
substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the

[[Page 8346]]

        amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the 
        following: ``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of 
        line 11 through line 6 of page 17 and renumbering the `(3)' on 
        line 7, page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 
        through line 5 on page 18.''. . .

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my 
    amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the 
    gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions 
    from the bill.
        The Chairman: (18) It is the ruling of the Chair 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Symms) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper substitute. 
    The substitute would strike portions of section 11 not affected by 
    the pending amendment. And, the substitute is broader in scope than 
    the amendment to which offered and is not germane thereto. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment to House Rule To Provide for Selection of Acting Committee 
    Chairman--Substitute Amending Different Rule

Sec. 21.8 To an amendment modifying a rule of the House to provide for 
    selection of an acting committee chairman during the disability of 
    the permanent chairman, a substitute amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to amend a different rule of the House and to 
    modify methods of selecting the committee chairmen and vice 
    chairmen at the commencement of a Congress.

    During consideration of that part of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970 (19) which related to the calling of committee 
meetings, an amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules). 116 Cong. Rec. 24036, 91st Cong. 
        2d Sess., July 14, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: 
    Section 102 of title 1 is amended by adding a new subsection on 
    page 8 after line 19:

            (f) Whenever the chairman of any standing committee is 
        unable to discharge his responsibilities, the committee by 
        majority vote shall designate a member with full authority to 
        act as chairman until such time as the chairman is able to 
        resume his responsibilities.

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered (20) stating 
in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 24037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Bertram L.] Podell [of New 
    York] for the amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: On page 8, after 
    line 19, insert the following:

            (c) Clause 3 of Rule X of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended to read:

[[Page 8347]]

            (3) At the commencement of each Congress, each standing 
        committee shall elect a chairman and a vice-chairman from among 
        its members; in the temporary absence of the chairman, the 
        vice-chairman shall act as chairman. . . .

        On page 8, delete lines 14 through 17 and insert the following:

            (d) If the chairman of any standing committee is not 
        present at any . . . meeting of the committee, the vice-
        chairman shall preside. . . . If neither the chairman nor the 
        vice-chairman is present, the committee shall then designate a 
        Member of the committee to serve as chairman temporarily. . . .

    Mr. Bernice F. Sisk, of California, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 24037, 24038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, in support of the point of 
order, stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 24038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment, in my opinion, is 
    definitely subject to a point of order under the provisions which 
    the Chair first announced inasmuch as it applies to chairmen and 
    the election of chairmen of committees, and we are now considering 
    a section of the bill which has to do only with committee meetings.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York goes 
    beyond the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. It is 
    not germane to the amendment offered. But the Chair would like to 
    inform the gentleman from New York that a portion of the amendment 
    could be germane following section 118, as a new section.

Amendment Requiring Vessels in Bill Be Constructed From American 
    Steel--Substitute To Require All Materials in Vessels Be American

Sec. 21.9 To an amendment requiring that merchant marine vessels 
    constructed pursuant to the bill under consideration be constructed 
    of steel produced in the United States, a substitute amending 
    another portion of the bill to require all materials used in such 
    construction to be produced in the United States, unless certain 
    findings were made, was held not germane as beyond the scope of the 
    amendment to which offered.

    During consideration of the Energy Transportation Security Act of 
1977(4) in the Committee of the Whole, a point of order 
against the amendment described above was sustained, demonstrating that 
the test of germaneness of a substitute for a pending amendment is the 
relationship between the substitute and the amend

[[Page 8348]]

ment (and not between the substitute and the bill to which the 
amendment has been offered). The proceedings of Oct. 19, 
1977,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 1037.
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 34217, 34218, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Cunningham [III, of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham: On page 9, line 24 
        after the word ``constructed'' insert the following: ``of steel 
        produced in the United States,''. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham:
            That H.R. 1037 be amended by inserting on page 10, line 2, 
        after the word ``subsidy'', the following: ``In all such 
        construction the shipbuilder, subcontractors, materialmen, or 
        suppliers shall use, so far as practicable, only articles, 
        materials, and supplies of the growth, production, or 
        manufacture of the United States as defined in paragraph K of 
        section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930; Provided however, That 
        with respect to other than major components of the hull, 
        superstructure, and any material used in the construction 
        thereof, (1) if the Secretary of Commerce determines that the 
        requirements of this sentence will unreasonably delay 
        completion of any vessel beyond its contract delivery date, and 
        (2) if such determination includes or is accompanied by a 
        concise explanation of the basis therefor, then the Secretary 
        of Commerce may waive such requirements to the extent 
        necessary.''

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of 
    order against the substitute amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine 
    and Fisheries is attempting to amend the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 
    1930 by expanding the definition of the material that was included 
    in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act under 
    the rules of the House was confined exclusively to the Committee on 
    Ways and Means and not to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries, and I think it is not germane to this bill. It is a 
    matter that is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, we have lived long enough with the 
    Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act without having to resurrect that buzzard. . 
    . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: . . . The language of the substitute 
    amendment is direct language taken from the Merchant Marine Act of 
    1970. It is, of course, language that came from the committee. It 
    is language that we feel is germane to the precise bill because it 
    goes to the construction standards of the vessels that will be 
    constructed under the act. Therefore, I would hope that the Chair 
    would overrule the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: . . . It seems to me that 
    the question here is whether the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Murphy) is germane to the

[[Page 8349]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Cunningham). Mr. Chairman, I think that it is clearly a violation 
    of our rules of germaneness because it does go to the Smoot-Hawley 
    Tariff Act of 1930 and far expands on the amendment which was 
    submitted by the gentleman from Washington.
        The title of the bill, which is to require that a percentage of 
    the U.S. oil imports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, does not 
    contain tariff references, nor does it give the sweeping power to 
    the Secretary of Commerce that is included in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York, nor does the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York really modify the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Washington because it is far greater in scope and 
    effect.
        Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the amendment is clearly 
    nongermane and the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Washington offers an amendment on page 9, 
    line 24, to insert the words ``of steel produced in the United 
    States'' after the word ``constructed''. To that amendment the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) offers a substitute which 
    provides that:

            In all such construction the shipbuilder, subcontractors, 
        material men, or suppliers shall use, so far as practicable, 
        only articles, materials, and supplies of the growth, 
        production, or manufacture of the United States . . .

        The narrow question before the Chair is whether the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) is 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Cunningham). The Chair would observe certainly of the proposed 
    substitute that it is far broader than the item of steel referred 
    to in the base amendment and refers to ``articles, materials, and 
    supplies'' and so on. Therefore the Chair would have to rule that 
    the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) 
    is not germane and the point of order by the gentleman from Florida 
    is sustained.

Income Ceiling for Occupants of Housing Projects--Substitute 
    Authorizing President To Set Maximum Wage Levels for Public Housing 
    Occupants

Sec. 21.10 For a proposed amendment requiring that an applicant for 
    admission to a low-rent housing project not have income exceeding 
    $2,000 per annum, a substitute amendment authorizing instead the 
    President to set from time to time the maximum annual wage level 
    for occupants of public housing units was held to be germane.

    In the 83d Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1954,(7) the following proposal,

[[Page 8350]]

in the form of an amendment offered by Mr. O. Clark Fisher, of 
Texas,(8) was under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 7839 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 8. See 100 Cong. Rec. 4479, 4480, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 2, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec.--. Section 15(8)(a) of the United States Housing Act of 
    1937, as amended, is hereby amended by adding a proviso as follows: 
    ``Provided, That maximum income limits for admission to such low-
    rent housing project may not exceed $2,000 per annum, and for 
    continued occupancy may not exceed $2,300 per annum''.

    To such amendment, a substitute amendment was offered: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 4480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Holifield for the amendment 
    offered by Mr. Fisher: ``Provided further, That the President shall 
    from time to time set the annual maximum wage level for occupants 
    of public housing units, taking into consideration the number of 
    persons in each family, the current purchasing power of the dollar 
    in relation to the cost of living and wage levels of each 
    locality.''

    The following exchange concerned a point of order raised against 
the substitute amendment:

        Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the amendment 
    which the gentleman from Texas offered, and which is now pending.
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    offered it as a substitute amendment. I do not offer this amendment 
    as an amendment to the gentleman's amendment.
        Mr. Fisher: It is not germane to the bill. . . .
        It relates to wages and has no reference to rents. It is not 
    germane to the subject matter covered in the pending bill nor to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
        The Chairman: (10) . . . Both amendments would 
    appear to deal with the financial income of the applicants for 
    occupancy in these facilities. One amendment fixes income limits. 
    The other delegates authority for the income to be fixed. Both 
    amendments seem to deal with the same subject matter. The Chair 
    holds that the amendment is germane and overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. B. Carroll Reece (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to War Powers Bill Relating to Wages and Hours--Substitute 
    Imposing Penalties for Causing Strike

Sec. 21.11 Where a pending amendment to the Second War Powers Bill 
    related to the question of hours or days of labor and compensation 
    therefor, an amendment offered as a substitute which sought to 
    impose penalties for causing a strike or lockout was held to be not 
    germane to the pending amendment.

    In the 77th Congress, during proceedings related to the Second

[[Page 8351]]

War Powers Bill of 1952,(11) a proposition was under 
consideration as described above.(12) An amendment was 
offered, as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
12. The amendment described had been offered by Mr. Howard W. Smith 
        (Va.).
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 1736, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Folger offers the following amendment as a substitute for 
    the Smith amendment: Amend title IV of S. 2208, by adding after the 
    period in line 11, the following:

            Whoever, during the period of this war and while the United 
        States is engaged therein shall order . . . or cause any 
        strike, walk-out, or lock-out of workers (a strike, walk-out, 
        or lock-out resulting) in any plant . . . or other place 
        engaged in defense or war production work, shall be guilty of a 
        felony. . . .

    Mr. Joseph E. Casey, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. In response, Mr. Alonzo D. Folger, of 
North Carolina, stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 1737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair observed yesterday this is an unusual bill in that 
    it deals with many subjects, but at the same time is designed and 
    intended to expedite and to prevent interference with war 
    production in this country. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this 
    strikes at the very root of interference with and therefore tends 
    to expedite the war production in this country. . . .

    The Chairman (15) made the following observation with 
respect to the point at issue:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The question here presented is whether the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is germane to the 
    pending amendment--not to the pending bill.

    Subsequently, in ruling on the point of order, he stated:

        . . .  Of course, the Chair does not now undertake to pass upon 
    the question of whether the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina would be in order if offered as an amendment seeking 
    to include a new title in the pending bill.
        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia relates only to 
    the question of hours, days, or weeks of labor and compensation 
    therefor . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, 
    among other things, deals with strikes, walk-outs, lock-outs, and 
    imposes penalties. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia does not go nearly that far and does not undertake to 
    impose penalties. The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is much 
    broader than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
    and is not therefore germane.

[[Page 8352]]

Amendment Barring Induction Into Armed Services Unless Voluntary 
    Enlistments Insufficient--Substitute To Create Joint Committee To 
    Investigate Voluntary Enlistment Campaign

Sec. 21.12 For an amendment providing that no person be inducted into 
    the armed services until the President proclaims that a sufficient 
    number of persons cannot be attained by voluntary enlistment to 
    meet military requirements, a substitute proposing to create a 
    joint congressional committee to conduct an investigation of the 
    voluntary enlistment campaign was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during proceedings relating to the Selective 
Services Act of 1948,(16) an amendment was under 
consideration as described above. The following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 8509, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Paul W.] Shafer [of 
    Michigan] for the committee amendment: . . .

            Sec. --. (a) There is hereby created a joint congressional 
        committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Voluntary 
        Enlistments. . . .

            (b) The joint committee shall conduct a thorough study and 
        investigation of the voluntary enlistment campaign required by 
        section 23 of this act and shall report to the Senate and the 
        House of Representatives the results of its study and 
        investigation. . . .

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

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan that it is not germane to the amendment for which it is 
    offered as a substitute. It very obviously contains subject matter 
    the provisions of which are not even contemplated by the bill, let 
    alone the committee amendment for which it seeks to serve as a 
    substitute.

    The Chairman,(18) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8510, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Shafer] is 
    offered as a substitute for an amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Andrews]. The amendment for which it is offered 
    as a substitute is limited to certain things. It relates wholly to 
    the time of induction and the determination that a sufficient 
    number cannot in the judgment of the President be obtained by 
    voluntary enlistment and by voluntary requests for call to active 
    duty. The

[[Page 8353]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Shafer] goes 
    far beyond the scope of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Andrews] and proposes to create a joint congressional 
    committee and deals with other matters beyond the scope of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        The Chair is constrained to rule that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Shafer] is not germane as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Andrews].
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment to Substitute Not Required To Affect Same Page and Line 
    Numbers as Substitute.

Sec. 21.13 An amendment to a substitute is not required to affect the 
    same page and line numbers as the substitute in order to be 
    germane, it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to the 
    subject matter of the substitute. Accordingly, to a substitute to 
    require that certain emergency energy conservation plans (entailing 
    the use of auto stickers indicating certain days an auto would not 
    be operated) be established (1) only after consultation with state 
    governors, and (2) only after consideration of rural and suburban 
    needs, an amendment striking out and inserting language elsewhere 
    in the bill which also related to the use of auto stickers as part 
    of the energy conservation plans, was held germane to the two 
    diverse conditions already required by the substitute.

    During consideration of S. 1030 (20) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Aug. 1, 1979,(1) Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of 
Florida, overruled a point of order against an amendment to a 
substitute and held that the amendment was germane to the substitute. 
The amendment and proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979.
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 21939, 21944-47, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rinaldo: Page 45, after line 9, insert 
        the following new subsection:
            ``(d) Needs of Rural and Certain Other Areas.--Any system 
        under this section shall be established only after consultation 
        with the Governors of the States involved and shall provide 
        appropriate consideration of the needs of those in subur

[[Page 8354]]

        ban and rural areas, particularly those areas not adequately 
        served by any public transportation system, through the 
        geographical coverage of the system, through exemptions under 
        subsection (c)(8), or through such other means as may be 
        appropriate.

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: 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. Maguire to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Rinaldo: At the end insert the following: Page 43, beginning on 
        line 24, strike out ``day of each week that vehicle will not be 
        operated'' and insert ``day of each week the owner of that 
        vehicle has selected for that vehicle not to be operated''.

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Maguire amendment, although offered to the 
    Moffett amendment, is really a direct amendment to the bill before 
    us. Therefore, it is not germane to the Moffett substitute. In 
    addition, the Moffett substitute goes to page 45, line 9 of the 
    bill before us. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Maguire) goes to page 43, line 24.
        In addition, it is also not germane for that purpose.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I 
    am sure the gentleman from New Jersey desires to do so also.
        Mr. Chairman, the question of where the amendment might lie in 
    the bill with regard to page or section is not important. I would 
    observe to the Chair that the amendment offered originally by the 
    minority goes to several pages in the bill. I would point out that 
    what is involved here is the text of the amendments, and whether or 
    not the language and the purposes and the concepts of the amendment 
    are germane and are relative and relevant to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Connecticut.
        I believe that a reading of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut will show that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Maguire) is in fact germane to 
    it in terms of concept and in terms of purposes for which the 
    amendment happens to be offered. For that reason, I think that the 
    point of order should be rejected. . . .
        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, the key point is that this is a 
    refinement of the material that the Moffett substitute deals with. 
    Therefore, the page on which it appears is irrelevant, and the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the substitute and the amendment, and 
    states that while the page references are different, the principal 
    matter of concern is the relationship between the amendment and the 
    substitute. Clearly, there is a substantive relationship that goes 
    beyond the question of the pages, since both deal with auto sticker 
    plans.
        On the matter of the scope of the amendment and its 
    germaneness, the Moffett substitute imposes conditions

[[Page 8355]]

    on the entire auto sticker plan in the bill in two diverse aspects. 
    One is a requirement of consultation with Governors, and the other 
    is a special consideration which would be required for suburban and 
    rural areas. The amendment to the substitute clearly deals with 
    another diverse element of the plan itself, and, because of the 
    diverse scope of the substitute, is germane to the substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Substitute Amendment to Concurrent Resolution on Budget--Amendment to 
    Substitute as Enlarging Scope.

Sec. 21.14 To a substitute amendment to a concurrent resolution on the 
    budget changing one functional category only, an amendment changing 
    not only that category but several other categories of budget 
    authority and outlays and covering an additional fiscal year was 
    held to be more general in scope and therefore was ruled out as not 
    germane.

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

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

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as 
        a

[[Page 8356]]

        substitute for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the 
        matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 1980, 
        strike out the amount specified for new budget authority and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$137,808,000,000''.
            In the matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 
        1980, strike out the amount specified for outlays and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$125,070,000,000''.
            Increase the aggregate amounts in the first section (other 
        than the amount of the recommended level of Federal revenues 
        and the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues 
        should be decreased) accordingly. . . .

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

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

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: . . . I raise the 
    point of order

[[Page 8357]]

    against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    Wilson amendment, which addresses itself to one function, national 
    defense, and this addresses itself far beyond that; and, therefore, 
    it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is my understanding that the 
    Charles H. Wilson amendment although it only addressed itself to 
    defense, it, by the language, inferred all that was in the 
    amendment of the gentlewoman from New York, by striking that. It 
    struck every section of the Holtzman amendment.
        If I am not germane here, certainly I am germane to the 
    Holtzman amendment and will offer my amendment to the Holtzman 
    amendment in the nature of an amendment to the Holtzman amendment, 
    if that be the necessary case.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule upon 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Provisions Affecting Standards for Compensation of Postal Workers at 
    Levels Comparable to Private Sector--Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 21.15 To a proposition that postal employees receive compensation 
    equal to that paid for comparable levels of work in the private 
    sector and that such compensation be uniform in all areas of the 
    Nation, an amendment providing for pay differentials between postal 
    carriers or clerks and their supervisors was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Postal Reform Act 
of 1970,(4) amendments affecting the following language of 
the bill were offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 17070 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 20211, 20212, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 205. Policy on compensation and benefits ``It shall be the 
    policy of the Postal Service to maintain for each wage area 
    compensation and benefits for all employees on a standard of 
    comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for comparable 
    levels of work in the private sector of the economy in the 
    corresponding wage area. The Postal Service, consistent with 
    subchapter II of this chapter and collective bargaining agreements, 
    shall define the boundaries of each wage

[[Page 8358]]

    area. It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to provide 
    adequate and reasonable differentials in rates of pay between 
    employees in the clerk and carrier grades in the line work force 
    and supervisory and managerial employees.

    An amendment was offered by Mr. Graham B. Purcell, Jr., of Texas: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 20432, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 18, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Purcell: On page 177, delete lines 
        19 to 24, and on page 178 delete lines 1 to 3. Insert beginning 
        on line 19, page 177, the following:
            ``It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to maintain 
        compensation and benefits for all employees on a standard of 
        comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for 
        comparable levels of work in the private sector of the economy. 
        Such policy may be applied on an area basis, in which event the 
        Postal Service, consistent with subchapter II of this chapter 
        and collective bargaining agreements, shall define the 
        boundaries of any such wage area. It shall be the policy of the 
        Postal Service to provide adequate and reasonable differentials 
        in rates of pay between employees in the clerk and carrier 
        grades in the line work force and supervisory and managerial 
        employees.''

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered by Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of 
Florida: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 20434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Purcell: On page 177, strike out line 
        19 and all that follows down through the period in line 2 on 
        page 178 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to maintain 
        compensation and benefits for all employees on a standard of 
        comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for 
        comparable levels of work in the private sector of the economy; 
        but there shall not be established, for any position or class 
        of positions under the Postal Service situated in any specific 
        area or location, a rate of compensation (including premium 
        compensation) which is higher than the rate of compensation 
        (including premium compensation) for the same position or class 
        of positions in any other specific area or location.''
            On page 192, immediately after the period in line 9, insert 
        the following: ``No such agreement shall contain any provision 
        which establishes, for any position or class of positions under 
        the Postal Service situated in any specific area or location, a 
        rate of compensation (including premium compensation) which is 
        higher than the rate of compensation (including premium 
        compensation) for the same position or class of position in any 
        other specific area or location.''

    An amendment to such substitute amendment was offered by Mr. 
Fletcher Thompson, of Georgia: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 20438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Thompson of Georgia to the 
        substitute amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons: After the second 
        paragraph insert: ``It shall further be the policy of the 
        Postal Service to provide adequate and reasonable differentials 
        in rates of pay between employees in

[[Page 8359]]

        the clerk and carrier grades in the line work force and 
        supervisory and managerial employees. The Postal Service shall, 
        in carrying out this policy, fix salary levels for the type of 
        first line supervisors now in PFS 7 at a level which is not 
        less than a level approximately as much higher as their rates 
        of pay now exceed those in present grade PFS 5. There shall be 
        appropriate and reasonable differentials between PFS 7 and 8 
        and between all higher grades similar to those in effect on the 
        day immediately before the date of enactment of this section.''

    The following exchange concerned a point of order raised against 
the amendment:

        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The gentleman is 
    amending something in mine that mine does not touch at all. . . .
        . . . [H]e is trying to amend my substitute with something that 
    is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Thompson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, the language that I 
    inserted is the language which was in the original section which 
    was stricken. It does not affect the area wage. It does provide 
    that the supervisors will, in effect, be paid a greater wage than 
    will the letter carriers or clerks because of their 
    responsibilities.
        Inasmuch as it was in the original section, it certainly should 
    be germane to any amendment to the original section.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the language in the amendment and also in 
    the substitute and the language deals exactly with the same section 
    of the bill and touches on the same subjects.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The section of the bill being amended 
(Sec. 205), and the Purcell amendment for which the Gibbons substitute 
was offered, both contained statements of policy similar to those 
contained in the Gibbons substitute as well as the additional statement 
of policy contained in the Thompson amendment. As explained in the 
introduction to this section, supra, the Chair does not normally look 
at language in the bill proposed to be stricken by the original 
amendment, but only at matter proposed to be inserted by the 
substitute, in measuring the germaneness of amendments to the 
substitute. Here, the substitute dealt with two compensation policies, 
and the addition of a third within the same class (compensation) was 
considered germane.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Must Be Germane to Bill as Whole--
    Incidental Portion of Amendment as Not Determining Germaneness

Sec. 21.16 The germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill depends on its relationship to

[[Page 8360]]

    the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
    content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
    considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
infra.

Sec. 21.17 For a proposition reported from the Committee on Interior 
    and Insular Affairs authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    establish national petroleum reserves on certain public lands and 
    authorizing exploration for oil and gas on naval petroleum reserve 
    number 4 with annual reports to Congress, an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute containing similar provisions and also 
    requiring a task force study of the values and best uses for 
    subsistence, scenic, historical, and recreational purposes, and for 
    fish and wildlife, of the public lands in that naval petroleum 
    reserve was held germane despite the inclusion of that incidental 
    portion which, if considered separately, would have been tested for 
    germaneness only in relation to the portion of the bill to which 
    offered.

    On July 8, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 49 in 
the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, held that the 
test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole and is not necessarily 
determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
which, if offered separately, might not be germane to the portion of 
the bill to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-34, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
        States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
        energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to 
        national defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
        approval of the President, is authorized to establish national 
        petroleum reserves on any reserved or unreserved public lands 
        of the United States (except lands in the National Park System, 
        the Na

[[Page 8361]]

        tional Wildlife Refuge System, the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
        System, the National Wilderness Preservation System, areas now 
        under review for inclusion in the Wilderness System in 
        accordance with provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and 
        lands in Alaska other than those in Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4). . . .
            (f) The Secretary of the Interior with the approval of the 
        President, is hereby authorized and directed to explore for oil 
        and gas on the area designated as Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4 if it is included in a National Petroleum Reserve 
        and he shall report annually to Congress on his plan for 
        exploration of such reserve, Provided, That no development 
        leading to production shall be undertaken unless authorized by 
        Congress. He is authorized and directed to undertake a study of 
        the feasibility of delivery systems with respect to oil and gas 
        which may be produced from such reserve: Provided further, That 
        the Secretary of the Interior shall, through a Task Force, 
        including representatives of the State of Alaska, the Arctic 
        Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
        and the Office of National Petroleum Reserves established by 
        this Act, functioning cooperatively, study and review the 
        values and best uses of the public domain lands contained in 
        Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as subsistence lands for 
        natives, scenic, historical, recreational, fish and wildlife, 
        wilderness or for other purposes, and, within three years, 
        submit to Congress his recommendations for such designation of 
        areas of those lands as may be appropriate and, Provided 
        further, That oil and gas exploration within the Utukok River 
        and Teheshepuk Lake areas and others containing significant 
        subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, historical or 
        scenic values, shall be conducted in a manner so as to preserve 
        such surface values.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. . . .
        The bill, H.R. 49, authorizes as follows:

            To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish on 
        certain public lands of the United States national petroleum 
        reserves the development of which needs to be regulated in a 
        manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation, 
        and for other purposes.

        Mr. Chairman, if we refer to the bill in toto, nowhere will we 
    find in that bill language relating to subsection (f) of the 
    amendment submitted to us. I regret that I cannot give the Chair 
    the precise citation.
        I will state that the point of order goes to the section 
    relating to the words,

            Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior shall, 
        through a Task Force, including representatives of the State of 
        Alaska, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish 
        and Wildlife Service and the Office of National Petroleum 
        Reserves established by this Act, functioning cooperatively, 
        study and review the values and best uses of the public domain 
        lands contained in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as 
        subsistence lands for natives, scenic, historical, 
        recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness or for other 
        purposes, and, within three years submit to Congress his 
        recommendations for such designation of areas of those lands as 
        may be appropriated. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, a fundamental rule of the House of 
    Representatives is that the burden of establishing the germaneness 
    of an amendment falls upon the offeror and does not fall upon the

[[Page 8362]]

    Member challenging the germaneness. I would point out that nowhere 
    else in the bill is there a proviso for a provision for a study 
    involving groups, and nowhere in the title of the legislation is 
    there anything that would justify or authorize a study of the kind 
    that is set forth here in the amendment.
        As a matter of fact, nowhere in the amendment that was reported 
    by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to the House of 
    Representatives is there anything which would relate to a study. A 
    study of the kind that is before us is totally different and alien.
        The purpose of the legislation is to establish a program of 
    national strategic reserves and for the development of the 
    petroleum reserves and not for the establishment of a study. It is 
    not for the establishment of a study relating to fish and wildlife 
    values, historical values, and matters of that sort.
        So since the burden falls upon the offeror of the amendment, 
    the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), I would point out that he 
    has assumed for himself a burden which is impossibly heavy, and 
    that is to provide a study of such sweeping import relating to 
    totally different matters than those which are contained in the 
    bill.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be 
    sustained.
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think the point is covered in rule XVI at 
    section 798c where it says as follows:

            . . . the test of the germaneness of an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to the 
        bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
        content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
        considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of 
        another committee.

        Mr. Chairman, I think that about settles the point.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The proviso cited by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is on page 8 of the mimeographed form of the Melcher amendment.

        Had this proviso been presented separately, the germaneness 
    would have been measured against the portion of the Interior 
    Committee amendment to which offered. However, having been 
    presented as a part of an overall substitute, the Chair would rule 
    that the provision objected to is merely incidental to the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment, and that under the precedent 
    cited by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), in section 
    798(b) of the Manual the amendment is germane to the text when 
    viewed as a whole.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Special Rule Permitting Point of Order Based on Germaneness To Be Made 
    Against Portion of Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 21.18 Under the terms of a special rule, a point of order based on 
    the germaneness of only a portion of an amendment to the original 
    bill was permitted to be made against a section of an amendment in

[[Page 8363]]

    the nature of a substitute being read as original text for 
    amendment; the section of the amendment, which sought to make 
    permanent changes in law, was held to be not germane to a 
    proposition authorizing appropriations for one fiscal year.

    On May 24, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 10929) reported from the Committee on 
Armed Services authorizing appropriations and personnel strength for 
the armed forces for one fiscal year and containing minor conforming 
changes to existing law. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was, pursuant to a special rule, to be read as original text for 
amendment. A section of the amendment imposed permanent restrictions on 
troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea, in part making reductions 
in troop strength contingent upon the conclusion of a peace agreement 
with North Korea. The terms of the special rule permitted a point of 
order based on the germaneness rule to be made against that section of 
the amendment. The special rule (H. Res. 1188) stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 15293-15295, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. See 124 Cong. Rec. 15094, 15095, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 10929) to authorize appropriations during the 
    fiscal year 1979, for procurement of aircraft, missiles . . . and 
    other weapons . . . and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength for each active duty component . . . of the Armed Forces 
    and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . and 
    for other purposes. After general debate . . . the bill shall be 
    read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 
    to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill as an 
    original bill for the purposes of amendment, said substitute shall 
    be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all 
    points of order against said substitute for failure to comply with 
    the provisions of clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are 
    hereby waived, except that it shall be in order when consideration 
    of said substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 
    of said substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if 
    offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If 
    such point of order is sustained, it shall be in order to consider 
    said substitute without section 805 included therein as an original 
    bill for the purpose of amendment, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of 
    order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby 
    waived. . . .

[[Page 8364]]

    The proceedings of May 24, 1978, were as follows:

        The Chairman: (13) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, May 23, 1978, all time for general debate on the bill had 
    expired. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Authorization Act, 1979''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    accordance with the rule, House Resolution 1188, I make a point of 
    order that section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, if offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as 
    introduced, would be in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI 
    regarding germaneness. This provision which deals with the 
    withdrawal of troops from Korea, and section 805 which deals with 
    the withdrawal of troops from Korea, is not germane to the 
    Department of Defense authorization bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a key criterion in determining germaneness is a 
    committee's jurisdiction over a matter. The Korean troop withdrawal 
    issue falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations. Both sections 805(a) and 805(b) fall 
    clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, pursuant to clause 1, subparagraph (k) of House Rule X.
        Compelling evidence of the primary jurisdiction of the 
    International Relations Committee over the issue of troop 
    withdrawal from Korea is found in the fact that all legislation, 
    the President's arms transfer request, and related reports have 
    been referred solely to the International Relations Committee.
        Thus, there can be no doubt that the issue of the Korean troop 
    withdrawal lies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, and accordingly section 805 is not germane 
    to this bill.
        In addition, the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal from Korea is 
    not relevant to either the subject matter or to the purpose of H.R. 
    10929, as introduced. As introduced, H.R. 10929 consists entirely 
    of provisions relating to the annual authorizations for the 
    Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions for 
    the Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions 
    of any type, let alone any policy provisions relevant to the 
    withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea. It is well established that 
    an amendment of a general and permanent nature is not germane to a 
    bill containing only temporary authorizations.
        Thus, by whatever test of germaneness one examines, section 805 
    is not germane to H.R. 10929. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki), makes the point of order 
    that section 805 is not germane on the ground that it deals with a 
    matter that is related to

[[Page 8365]]

    something that has been before his committee. As he indicated 
    before the Committee on Rules, if this had been introduced as an 
    original bill, it would have been referred sequentially to the 
    Committee on International Relations as well as to the Committee on 
    Armed Services.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, the question of 
    germaneness does not depend on what committee it might be referred 
    to sequentially. In fact, the whole idea of sequential referral is 
    a relatively new concept. I believe, in fact, that it has only been 
    practiced in this House during this present Congress, and perhaps a 
    few times previously.
        H.R. 10929, is the annual authorization bill for the Department 
    of Defense. It traditionally covers a wide variety of topics 
    relating to defense. I would point out that the title of the bill 
    after it lists the various items that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    has already referred to concludes, ``and for other purposes.''
        Traditionally, matters related to the defense of our country 
    which the Committee on Armed Services has regarded as being of 
    importance have been included in this annual legislation year after 
    year. Section 805 is no different from any of the other matters we 
    have traditionally handled under ``general provisions.''
        It is true that the gentleman's committee has had legislation 
    before it regarding the transfer of American equipment to Korean 
    forces; but section 805 refers to the stationing and positioning of 
    U.S. ground forces; ``no ground combat units of the 2d Infantry 
    Division,'' and so on and so forth. It makes no reference to any 
    transfer of equipment to Korean forces. We are providing here for 
    the stationing of troops in an area that is of great importance to 
    our national security. If that is not something which is within the 
    concern of the Committee on Armed Services, then I do not know what 
    our proper area of responsibility is.
        Subsection (b) of section 805 spells out the recommendations of 
    the committee as to what the minimum ground combat strength of our 
    Armed Forces stationed in the Republic of Korea should be based on 
    information we gleaned in an on-the-spot visit to Korea in January; 
    so it is clearly within the province of the Committee on Armed 
    Services. The gentleman from Wisconsin does not dispute that. The 
    gentleman could not dispute it; but to suggest that because if it 
    were introduced as a bill under today's procedures it might have 
    been referred sequentially to the gentleman's committee or to some 
    other committee, completely misses the point. If the size and 
    location of Armed Forces of the United States are not a 
    responsibility of the Committee on Armed Services, and are instead 
    the responsibility of the Committee on International Relations, 
    then something is very drastically wrong in this House.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the authority to determine where 
    American Forces shall be stationed is clearly within the province 
    of the Congress. The Constitution provides that Congress shall not 
    only ``raise and support armies,'' but that we shall provide for 
    the ``regulation and governing of the land and naval forces,'' in 
    section 8 of article I.

[[Page 8366]]

        Congress has previously enacted the war powers bill, which 
    limits the authority of the President as far as the stationing of 
    troops abroad is concerned. The Constitution does not give a broad 
    grant of power to the Commander in Chief alone in stationing troops 
    abroad. He has no constitutional power to put troops wherever he 
    wants to, because Congress has determined that he cannot put troops 
    abroad under certain conditions without the expressed approval of 
    the Congress of the United States.
        Well, if we can limit the President's ability to send troops 
    overseas, it follows that we can also limit his ability to bring 
    those troops back home, if in the opinion of the Congress, we 
    determine that that withdrawal action, which certainly is the case 
    of Korea, would increase the risks of war.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point of order be overruled. 
    Section 805 is clearly within the authority of the committee. It is 
    clearly germane to the broad purposes of the bill and the House 
    should have the right to vote on this important question.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin makes a point of order against section 805 of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Armed Services, on the grounds that section 805 of 
    said amendment would not have been germane if offered to the bill 
    H.R. 10929, as introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Wisconsin, the special order 
    providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 1188, 
    allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis stated 
    by the gentleman, that section 805 of the committee amendment would 
    not have been germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 in its 
    introduced form.

        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed 
    Services contains authorizations of appropriations and personnel 
    strengths of the Armed Services for fiscal year 1979. It contains 
    no permanent changes to law or statements of policy except for 
    minor conforming changes to existing law relating to troop and 
    personnel strengths.
        Section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute prohibits: First the withdrawal of ground combat units 
    from the Republic of Korea until the enactment of legislation 
    allowing the retention in Korea of the equipment of such units, and 
    second, the reduction of combat units below a certain level in the 
    Republic of Korea until a peace settlement is reached between said 
    Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ending the 
    state of war on the Korean peninsula.
        The subject matter of section 805 of the committee amendment is 
    unrelated to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The strength levels 
    prescribed in the bill are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with the 
    overall strength of the Armed Forces, not with the location of 
    Armed Forces personnel. As indicated in the argument of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the withdrawal of American Forces 
    stationed abroad pursuant to an international agreement, and the 
    relationship of that withdrawal to peace agreements between foreign 
    nations and to the transfer of American military equipment to 
    foreign powers, are

[[Page 8367]]

    issues not only beyond the scope of the bill but also within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. Although 
    committee jurisdiction over an amendment is not the sole test of 
    germaneness, the Chair feels that it is a convincing argument in a 
    case such as the present one where the test of germaneness is 
    between a limited 1-year authorization bill and a permanent 
    statement of policy contingent upon the administration of laws 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the Chair may have just stated a 
    novel concept which has never before been heard in a ruling. That 
    is that the sequential referral rule somehow serves as the basis 
    for jurisdiction, and thus can support a point of order dealing 
    with a section in a bill such as the one before us.
        The parliamentary inquiry I have is this: Simply because under 
    the new procedure adopted for the first time in this Congress the 
    rules allow sequential referral at the discretion of the Speaker, 
    does that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, such 
    as the Committee on Armed Services, may be challenged on the floor 
    and have a point of order sustained removing a provision that might 
    be partially under the jurisdiction of another committee on a 
    sequential referral?
        The Chairman: The ruling of the Chair does not stand for that 
    proposition.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
    understood the Chair to say that the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was persuasive to the Chair regarding jurisdiction. If 
    that is the case, it seems to me every committee of this House is 
    somehow going to be challenged on the floor henceforth if its 
    jurisdiction is shared to the slightest degree by another 
    committee.
        The Chairman: All the Chair has stated is that section 805 is 
    not germane to the introduced bill, and the rule provides that the 
    point of order would lie on that ground.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have this further parliamentary 
    inquiry:
        Then the ruling of the Chair is based on germaneness of this 
    amendment to this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential 
    jurisdiction would have on the provision?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    The point of order having been sustained against the nongermane 
portion of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
Chair directed the Clerk to read the substitute without the nongermane 
portion as original text for amendment, pursuant to the special rule.

Joint Resolution Authorizing Loan Agreement With Britain--Amendment in 
    Nature of Substitute Prohibiting Loans to Foreign Governments Until 
    Budget Balanced

Sec. 21.19 To a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of

[[Page 8368]]

    the Treasury to carry out a certain loan agreement between the 
    United States and the United Kingdom, an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute for the joint resolution providing that it shall be 
    unlawful for the government or any department thereof to lend or 
    give money to any foreign government until the budget is balanced 
    was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to implement the purposes of the Bretton Woods Agreements 
Act by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to carry out an 
agreement with the United Kingdom. The bill stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S.J. Res. 138 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
15.  See 92 Cong. Rec. 8915, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 13, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
    consultation with the National Advisory Council on International 
    Monetary and Financial Problems, is hereby authorized to carry out 
    the agreement dated December 6, 1945, between the United States and 
    the United Kingdom which was transmitted by the President to the 
    Congress on January 30, 1946.

    An amendment was offered (16) as described above. Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, raised the point of order that the amendment 
was not germane to the bill. The Chairman, (17) in ruling on 
the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8938.
17. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane. The section now under consideration 
    authorizes the carrying out of the agreement dated December 6, 
    1945. Section 2 provides for the implementing of or the financing 
    or the carrying out of that agreement.
        The pending amendment is not related to the subject matter and 
    the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Striking Section of Bill

Sec. 21.20 To a bill consisting of two sections, an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute striking out all after the enacting clause 
    and inserting language of the second and final section was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which sought to provide rules for the judicial 
interpretation of acts of Congress. The following exchange 
(19) concerned a point of

[[Page 8369]]

order raised against a substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. 105 Cong. Rec. 11794, 11795, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order to the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I followed the reading of the amendment and it is 
    word for word carrying section 2 of the bill after the enacting 
    clause. It is really an amendment to strike out section 1 and all 
    that this amendment does is simply to repeat what the Committee has 
    just voted on. It comes too late, Mr. Chairman, because section 1 
    has already been read. . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this is a 
    substitute amendment which, in effect, strikes out section 1. There 
    is no reason why a Member cannot offer a substitute amendment 
    changing the provisions of any section, either amending the section 
    or striking it out in toto. That is what this amendment does. It is 
    a substitute amendment substituting a new bill as it is, with the 
    elimination of section 1.
        The Chairman: (20) . . . The only function of the 
    Chair is to rule on the germaneness of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. The Chair believes the amendment is germane and, 
    therefore, the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent demonstrates that while it 
may be too late to offer a perfecting (or striking) amendment to a 
section of the bill already passed in the reading for amendment, it may 
be permissible to accomplish that result by an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute for the entire bill offered at the end of the reading.

Amendment Rewriting Concurrent Resolution on Budget Not Germane to 
    Perfecting Amendment Making More Limited Changes

Sec. 21.21 An amendment (in effect in the nature of a substitute) 
    rewriting an entire concurrent resolution on the budget covering 
    two fiscal years is not germane to a perfecting amendment proposing 
    certain changes in figures for one of the years covered by the 
    resolution.

    On May 2, 1979,(1) during consideration of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal year 1980 (House Concurrent 
Resolution 107), the Chair sustained a point of order against an 
amendment, thus holding that to a perfecting amendment to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget changing amounts in functional categories and 
aggregates only for one fiscal year, an amendment which addresses the 
budget for another fiscal year as well and which contains other 
unrelated

[[Page 8370]]

matter, as a redraft of the entire resolution, is not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9564-66, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Ms. Holtzman: Strike all after line 1 and insert:

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
    pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
    that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--

            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero;
            Sec. 6. Pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, the appropriate allocations for fiscal year 1979 
        made by H. Con. Res. 683 are revised as follows: . . .

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: The gentleman's 
    amendment is a substitute for the entire resolution; the Holtzman 
    amendment is not. It touches on matters not dealt with in the 
    Holtzman amendment, namely, changes for fiscal year 1979. It is, 
    therefore, not germane to the amendment of the gentlewoman from New 
    York (Ms. Holtzman). . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8371]]

Test of Germaneness of Amendment to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 21.22 The test of germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill is its 
    relationship to said substitute, and not to the original bill; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute only extending 
    for one year the entitlement authorization for revenue-sharing 
    during fiscal year 1981 and containing conforming changes in the 
    law which would not effectively extend beyond that year, an 
    amendment extending the revenue-sharing program for three years was 
    held broader in scope and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Nov. 13, 1980,(3) during consideration of the State 
and Local Fiscal Assistance Act Amendments of 1980 (4) in 
the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, to a proposition 
to appropriate or to authorize appropriations for only one year, an 
amendment to extend the appropriation or authorization to another year 
is not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 7112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, November 12, 1980, section 1 had been considered as 
    having been read and opened for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act Amendments of 1980''.
        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

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

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York] to 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Horton: On page 1 of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
        York, strike out

[[Page 8372]]

        section 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

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

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the Horton substitute. It is in violation of rule 
    XVI against nongermane amendments. The Horton substitute is limited 
    to an extension of this legislation in 1981 only. The amendment, 
    however, seeks to add language dealing with fiscal years 1982 and 
    1983. This is a different subject from that of the Horton 
    substitute and does not conform to the rule. The Horton substitute 
    was very carefully drafted and restricted to units of local 
    government for the entitlement period beginning October 1, 1980, 
    and ending September 30, 1981.
        The proposed amendment is a different subject matter, dealing 
    with State governments for a different period of time. . . .
        Mr. Wydler: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to the amendment that I 
    have offered deals with exactly the same subject matter as in the 
    amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Horton). It does deal with a longer time period, but it is the same 
    time period exactly that is contained in the legislation. It deals 
    with other matters which are contained in the general legislation, 
    so I feel it is well within the parameters of the bill it is trying 
    to be substituted for.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), in 
    the nature of a substitute, is to extend for 1 year the entitlement 
    authorization for revenue-sharing payments to local governments 
    during fiscal year 1981.
        Any amendment offered thereto must be germane to the Horton 
    amendment. It will not be sufficient that the amendment be germane 
    to the committee bill. Under the precedents, to a proposition to 
    appropriate for only 1 year, an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation to another year, is not germane; Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, section 2913.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Horton amendment and the 
    conforming changes therein have as their funda

[[Page 8373]]

    mental purpose the extension of local entitlements for only 1 year 
    and do not thereby open up the amendment to permanent or multiyear 
    changes in the revenue-sharing law.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was a three-year bill, but the Horton substitute, the 
relevant text, was a one-year provision only. Although in the form of 
an amendment to the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act, all 
provisions thereof applied only to the entitlement period, fiscal year 
1981.

Agriculture Bill: Provision Similar to One Contained in Original Bill 
    Offered as Amendment to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 21.23 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
    several Acts within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, an amendment directing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    establish emergency temporary work standards for agricultural 
    workers exposed to pesticide chemicals, notwithstanding provisions 
    of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor), and 
    repealing certain work regulations promulgated under that Act, was 
    held to be not germane, despite inclusion of a similar provision in 
    the bill to which the amendment in the nature of a substitute had 
    been offered.

    On July 19, 1973, (6) during consideration of a bill to 
amend and extend the Agriculture Act of 1970 (7) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness is the relationship between an amendment and the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to which it is offered, and not between 
an amendment and the bill for which the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute has been offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 6 119 Cong. Rec. 24962, 24963, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. . H.R. 8860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilmer] Mizell  [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mizell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Foley: On page 53, line 
        3, insert the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(c)) 
        or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall pro

[[Page 8374]]

        vide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, title 5, 
        United States Code, for an emergency temporary standard 
        prohibiting agricultural workers from entering areas where 
        crops are produced or grown (such emergency standard to take 
        immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register) if 
        he determines (1) that such agricultural workers are exposed to 
        grave danger from exposure to pesticide chemicals, as defined 
        in section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
        (21 U.S.C. 321(q)), and (2) that such emergency standard is 
        necessary to protect such agricultural workers from such 
        danger.
            (b) Such temporary standard shall be effective until 
        superseded by a standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by rule, no later than six months after publication 
        of such temporary standard. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane because it 
    would have the effect of amending the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act which is under the jurisdiction of the Education and 
    Labor Committee. . . .
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Chairman, this language was in the committee 
    bill that was reported to the House, and the Foley substitute 
    eliminated this section of the bill, and so for that reason, I 
    offer the amendment at this time, and I think it is germane to the 
    bill since this bill does cover a number of subjects. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, the rule 
    under which this legislation came to us precluded a point of order 
    being raised against the Mizell amendment, the one that was 
    contained in the original Agriculture Committee bill since this 
    bill was a clean bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture.
        What we are now dealing with is a situation in which this is an 
    amendment to a substitute.
        The subject matter covered by the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, since 
    it is covered by the Committee on Education and Labor, and thus I 
    believe the point of order ought to be sustained by the Chair. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair advises the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Mizell) that as far as the rule is concerned, it has no relevance 
    concerning the point of order at this time. It is true that the 
    content is the amendment as offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Mizell) on the original bill, but the amendment 
    before the House at this time is in the nature of a substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the point of order must be 
    sustained.

Amendment as Broader Than Proposition Being Amended

Sec. 21.24 To an amendment proposing to add a new paragraph to a 
    section of a bill, an amendment providing that certain procedures 
    not be permitted ``under this section'' was ruled out as not 
    germane.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  116 Cong. Rec. 24040, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 1970. See Sec. 
        18.6, supra.

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

[[Page 8375]]